Legal News

Scruggs?s Lawyer Cites ?Outrageous? Government Conduct

By Ashby Jones

The Mess in Mississippi has been on slow burn for quite a while now. But things got real hot last night when the latest batch of filings from the three remaining defendants hit the courthouse in-box.

High-flying plaintiffs lawyer Dickie Scruggs, his son, Zach, and his law partner, Sid Backstrom were indicted back in November for conspiring to bribe a Mississippi judge, Henry Lackey. A trial is scheduled to begin on March 31. Two defendants in the case, Timothy Balducci and Steven Patterson, have already agreed to plead guilty. Click here for previous posts on the Mess in Mississippi. The highlights:

Get Us Away from Him!: Both Zach and Backstrom moved to sever their trials from that of Dickie. “The allegations against Mr. Backstrom are sparse in comparison to those involving Richard Scruggs, Timothy Balducci and Steven Patterson,” reads Backstrom’s motion to sever. Both Backstrom and Zach fear that so-called “similar acts” evidence to be used against Dickie could unfairly taint each of their trials. The government has indicated it intends to present evidence that Dickie was involved in a separate but similar case involving a separate judge, Bobby Delaughter.

This, your Honor, is an Outrage!: If the motions to sever are appetizers, the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment for “outrageous government conduct” is the main course. Lawyers for all three argue that Judge Lackey and the government went a little nutso in their pursuit of Dickie et al prior to the indictment. “Judge Lackey pursued Balducci vigorously,” reads the motion. “Between [May 4 and September 21], Judge Lackey called Balducci no fewer than seven times. During the same time period, Balducci does not appear to have called Judge Lackey once — even to return a phone call.”

But does “outrageous government conduct” warrant a dismissed indictment? In some instances, yes. And the defense argues this is one such instance. “The investigation, indictment and prosecution of the defendants in this case offends the Fifth Amendment because the alleged crime was created by the government and its agents, first Judge Henry Lackey and then Timothy R. Balducci.”

Law Blog Reading Recommendation: For any Scruggs addicts out there, definitely check out yesterday’s filings (and not just because one of our articles is cited!). They help flesh out the case quite a bit. (Click here for a motion to suppress; and here, here, here and here for all the defense’s exhibits.)

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on February 12, 2008 (boomark / email).